Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHARMONY AND SHIELDS REZONING - 1-06 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning and Zoning Board Minutes March 16, 2006 Page 22 These Minutes were approved April 20, 2006 by the Planning and Zoning Board. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 16, 2006 Page 21 option. She also likes,the possibility of the three-quarter movement that Cameron mentioned earlier because there are several three-quarter movements on College Avenue that are not signalized that are really nice to use when you have a signal down stream because that opens up gaps in traffic for you to be able to make that left turn. She also felt that the signalized intersection north of Wakerobin will take some of the pressure off that and keep some of that commercial traffic toward the north side. She did want the applicant to know that traffic calming, especially around the schools and around Westbury will be considered very heavily. Member Smith commented that he looks at the existing situation and there is no MMN buffer between the neighborhood commercial and about 10 lots along Westbrooke Court right now. He looks at the proposed amended plan and the MMN provides a more significant buffer to that entire established neighborhood. He sees that as a definite advantage. He thought logistically that more we can do as a community to make whatever neighborhood commercial developments that we would approve assure or at least allow for their success. The more we can do to foster that would be in the communities overall benefit. To him having it on an arterial intersection makes a lot more sense that 500 feet north where there will be more forced left hand traffic onto Shields from Harmony than necessary. Member Smith moved to recommend to City Council the proposed amendment to the Structure Plan and the amendment will promote the public welfare and will be consistent with the Visions, Goals, Principles and Policies and the elements there of. Member Fries seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0 with Member Stockover absent. Member Schmidt moved to recommend to City Council to approve the rezoning of Harmony and Shields based on the findings of fact that it satisfies the criteria of Section 2.9.4 of the Land Use Code given that the Structure Plan has been amended. Member Meyer seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0 with Member Stockover absent. There was no other business. The meeting was adjourned at 8:46 p.m. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 16, 2006 Page 20 Member Rollins asked again about signalized intersections on Harmony and did Director Gloss know what it would look like without one any closer than Regency. Director Gloss replied that it would be right -in and right -out access and there is a possibility of a three-quarter movement but it would not be a signalized intersection. Member Schmidt stated that a gentleman who lives to the south mentioned that LMN on the corner would probably have commercial and is that a given and do we usually have commercial in LMN zone. Director Gloss replied that at one time we did have a request and there have been other requests before the Zoning Board of Appeals and the City Council regarding potential future commercial development on that site. At this point you don't see development plans submitted for that. The LMN zone district does allow some limited commercial uses and there was discussion with the property owner at that time, who had a desire to have some uses that are not permitted by right in the LMN zone because of separation requirements are not met. In this case the property owner at the time wanted a convenience store with fuel sales. There is a three-quarter mile separation requirement that could not be met and was not supported by staff. There is a potential in the LMN zone to have a neighborhood center. Member Rollins asked size wise could he compare this site to what is at Drake and Timberline. Director Gloss replied that the NC district at Drake and Timberline is zoned for about 20 acres. The actual NC potential is more like 16.5 acres, so relatively close to this size. Member Schmidt commented that she was glad that the additional POL rezoning would be put on next months agenda. Some of the comments about the traffic and the impact on Wakerobin and whether the commercial is on the one side or the other of that road, that road is going to be impacted and there is going to be traffic on it. She does have confidence that with this development and with the city's interest in that intersection they are going to try and make as many improvements as they can, There will be much more time for discussion when we see an actual plan and how the traffic is going to flow and that is where we discuss the traffic in much more detail than we are today. Member Rollins stated she has a student that goes to Webber Junior High so she is just as concerned about the school safety. She, thinks, and she has been a transportation engineer for 20 years that moving this to the south is probably a better situation for some of these roadways because if it is where it is currently located and she is coming from the west, which won't be the majority of the traffic, the only option would be Regency. If there is no connection from Harmony Road then that would be the only Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 16; 2006 Page 19 Director Gloss replied that he has posed that question to. Mr. Bracke and he reported that there will not be another signalized intersection there. Member Rollins asked about the intersection on Shields and would it be a T Intersection and does it line up with another street. Director Gloss replied that it does not line up with another street, it would be a three quarter movement. Member Schmidt asked if nothing is done development wise is there still going to be improvements at Harmony and Shields.. Director Gloss replied that there is a preliminary design for Harmony Shields Intersection improvements and we are anticipating that the project will get going in the next couple of years. Member Schmidt asked if there, was any transit service out here. Director Gloss replied no, but there is service to Front Range Community College. Member Schmidt asked the developer if it was much more likely if they move to the corner because of the increased visibility that they would have a larger anchor. Mr. Markel replied what they were trying to do is to get an anchor that is a grocery store and he knows that there is a differentiation between a grocery store and a supermarket. They do not know at this time whether it is a grocery store 45,000 s.f. or under or whether it would be a supermarket of 60,000 s.f. and in that range. The visibility is for the retail anchor needed to have a more successful opportunity and has nothing to do with the size. Member Fries asked if there was a possibility for this to be open space or a natural area. Chairperson Lingle replied that surely the owners could purchase the property and retain it as open space, but what was before the Board tonight is a Structure Plan Amendment and the accompanying rezoning that is irregardless of that type of discussion. Mr. Moore added that there have been some requests for the Natural Area Program to look at this site and consider that possibility. That would go before the Open Lands Board and staff would make a recommendation at that time. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 16, 2006 Page 18 Plan Map and/or if it is justified by changed circumstances in the neighborhood. Both of those in a sense become mandatory, but you could choose one or the other if you can't find both. He did not think that there has been any statement that there have been changed circumstances in the neighborhood. Director Gloss added that from staffs perspective it is a relatively weak argument that there are changed circumstances with the neighborhood that would require the change. Deputy City Attorney Eckman clarified that if that is not the case, then the mandatory requirement is that the zoning be in compliance with the city's Comprehensive Plan. including the Structure Plan Map. That is -why the Structure Plan map amendment is before the Board. Chairperson Lingle asked Mr. Moore to explain the review what the scenario would be for natural habitats regardless of whether the NC stays where it is or is moved. Mr. Moore showed a slide of the area and stated that the property in red was owned by the city Stormwater Department and that is where the wetland is showing up, where the Dragon's Lair Project was done by the volunteer group several years ago. He does not have an ecological characterization study on this project or a wetland delineation because at a zoning request we don't have that authority to get that information. That does not come until we get to an Overall Development Plan and a Project Development Plan submittal. It is hard for him to answer specific questions about wetlands — he does believe that there are some wetlands in this location, but he does not have any evidence to prove that because he has not yet been out there to look at the conditions. Right now on the Natural Habitat and Features Inventory Map the only thing that really shows up in this area is the native species trees. When we get to the finer details of the PDP that is when we get the studies to fine tune. He assumed that we would require a 50-foot wide wildlife movement corridor. He agreed with the applicant in that it would be easier to deal with a wetland with an NC zoning rather than a residential zoning district and it would be a smaller impact on the wetland. Member Schmidt asked if there would be some additional signal lights added. Director Gloss replied that there would be one north of Wakerobin on Shields. That would be a full movement intersection, so those using this center if approved, would likely take that further northbound entrance. Director Gloss displayed an aerial slide of the site showing the connections and reviewed those for the Board. Member Schmidt asked if there would be a signalized intersection at Regency Drive. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 16, 2006 Page 17 things like that, the 3-story apartment buildings may do more to block your view than a commercial would. Mr. Markel replied that was a good comment and on that particular corner if the residential was there it would be taller buildings than commercial would be. There would also be a parking field for the commercial so the buildings are set back from the corner. From a view standpoint you would have a better corridor with the commercial on the corner. From the wetlands standpoint you could probably isolate the wetlands easier with some parking around it rather than having a lot of residential with people and their dogs that could disturb a wetland. Member Schmidt asked if there was any kind of regulations on neighborhood commercial and whether 24 hour businesses are allowed. Director Gloss would check the Code. Chairperson Lingle asked staff to explain as the development plan would come forward what the difference would be if it was a grocery store or supermarket what the planning approval process would be. Director Gloss replied that the city does differentiate between a grocery store and a supermarket. A supermarket is larger and is over 45,000 s.f. A grocery store would be reviewed and considered by an Administrative Hearing Officer, where the larger supermarket would come before the Planning and Zoning Board for consideration. Chairperson Lingle asked staff to explain what rationale was used to determine that there was a change in condition on the site as was addressed in the staff report. Director Gloss replied that he put some information in the staff report regarding change in condition and it was specific to the zoning. To clarify there is the Structure Plan Amendment criteria which is different than the zone change. The other thing to mention is that if you go to page 5 of the staff report you will see the first Criterion which is A is listed as an and/or and is highlighted. You go to the next page and that is the Criterion that was mentioned. That is an optional Criterion for the Board, not a mandatory finding. From staffs perspective, we acknowledge that there is an expressed need by the applicant for greater market exposure and that is what they are hearing from the retailers in this case. The anchor grocery store or potential supermarket would be an integral part of the neighborhood center, but again that is an optional criterion not a mandatory finding for the Board. Deputy City Attorney Eckman clarified that the zoning can be changed only if the zoning would be in keeping with the city's Comprehensive Plan part of which is the Structure Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 16, 2006 Page 16 Matt Pielstick 4309 Westbrooke Drive stated that one of the very appealing things to this area was the open space. He did some research and found it to be a major commercial center. He thought that it was odd at the time that the neighborhood center was placed in the middle of Shields instead of on the comer, but bottom line was that he knew someday this would be developed as commercial and residential. As much as he does not want to see it go he is not excited about the traffic this will create. He thought that there is an opportunity to have very high quality development in this area. He is familiar with Mr. Markel's development at The Lodge at Miramont and it is very high quality in his opinion. He thought it was a great opportunity for them to have a nice development done by somebody who really does put their heart into it. PUBLIC INPUT CLOSED Chairperson Lingle asked for an applicant response to any comments heard from the neighborhood. Mr. Markel thanked all the neighbors for coming down, they were taking notes and he knows they are at odds over the positioning of the commercial. He does not think they are at odds over the ultimate look and feel of this particular area is going to be. They are understanding about traffic issues and they are also understanding about the schools and children and he thought it could be an opportunity for Troutman to go through and traffic calming on Wakerobin and also traffic directions so that it does not become convenient for everyone to stream through this particular neighborhood and interfere with the neighborhood and also with the school corridor. Member Schmidt asked if they knew if they would be doing a supermarket versus a grocery store. Mr. Markel replied that they are looking for an anchor tenant and they do have someone who is interested. They are not sure of the size. It is a grocery store and they have not gotten down to that level of detail. Member Schmidt asked if they were planning 3-story buildings in their MMN zoning district. Mr. Market replied the commercial is one story and the residential will be a mix of 2 and 3 story buildings. Member Schmidt said that it was important for the neighborhood to recognize that where the MMN is even if it is not commercial does not mean it will be single family homes because it is zoned for higher density. So if you are talking view scapes and Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 16, 2006 Page 15 Gary Moody 1206 Mariposa Court said it seems one of the concepts of a neighborhood center is that one could walk to it. For the people going to the center that have to cross Harmony and Shields there is currently no sidewalk there. He knows that can be fixed but he thought the concept of the neighborhood center is to make it an easy walk and creating a pedestrian village. He did not see that happening here. Another concern of his neighbors is the traffic down Westbury and people using that to get into the neighborhood center because one of the entrances shown would be on that backside and would make it an easy cut through. They also have a number of children in that area. Glen Crow 4419 Hilburn Court stated that it was his understanding that as part of the reconstruction of Harmony that there will be construction on Shields reaching all the way up to Wakerobin. It is also his understanding that the construction will involve an island so that there will be no left hand turns into Wakerobin. It is also his understanding that the city Engineer is contemplating a new entrance. In other words at the very moment that your are contemplating moving the commercial zone from north to south, the city Engineer is contemplating moving the primary entrance from south to north. He suggested that the left hand does not know what the right had is doing. He would also suggest that if access is limited in certain places, patrons will indeed take a roundabout means to get to the commercial center. The only means there is Regency. You have a very bad intersection there today. Displacing traffic from Shields, a commercial artery to Regency, a residential street running up to two schools is not sound planning. Garret Ziregan 4307 Westbrooke Court stated his family moved to this house 6 months ago from a small town called Los Angeles. It is quite ironic that he moves here after wanting to get out of Los Angeles and the first issue he is dealing with is this development. What Mr. Markel is proposing is a leading edge with commercial space, with medium density housing. He felt a compromise needs to be made with the wetlands and not have a big supermarket on this corner in order to preserve the open space. He asked the Board not to rezone the property to preserve the open space and to make something that is neighborhood friendly. Charlie Gross 4337 Mill Creek Court said in his opinion the whole subdivision was never designed correctly. For many years Wakerobin and Regency were the only entrances and exits to that whole area even considering that you have Webber and Johnson Schools there. Finally they alleviated some of the traffic problems by extending Senecca through. He has heard tales for 10 to 12 years that they were going to put Troutman through but that has not happened yet. He wanted to echo sentiments of many people who have spoke tonight and anything that is going to increase the traffic on Wakerobin and Regency is a very bad and dangerous move. He is opposed. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 16, 2006 Page 14 Westbury neighborhood, they contacted the city and asked what the zoning was on the property behind them and to the north. His issue is that he did his research on what was going on with the property around them and they recognize that the parcel is privately owned by a person out of state and it is zoned the way it is and they have the right to do what ever makes sense and follows the guidelines of the city. Moving this does create a problem for him and for his neighborhood. What he is asking is that there is a plan that was approved following all the guidelines that were created at the time they were created and followed all the guidelines as part of City Plan. The only people who he thinks this stands to benefit are the developers and the business owners who end up going into that corner. However, he has not seen any evidence from the developer or the city that substantiates the claim that the development would be more successful by being located 500 feet south. In his professional opinion a 500 foot change is not going to have any impact negative or positive whether it is on the corner or where it is zoned today. What he would ask is that they understood what the zoning was and they accepted that, they purchased and built their homes in that neighborhood knowing what that zoning was, they would prefer that it not be changed simply at the request of an unsubstantiated claim by a developer that it would be more successful if it is changed. Debra VanDermeer 1421 Nunn Creek stated that the reason she is concerned is that she has three small children. She has traffic concerns and encouraged the Board to go out there about 3:30 in the afternoon and see the intersections that are packed with children and cars. Putting 1,000 more cars on the street is endangering about 500 students that go to Johnson Elementary and many more that go to Webber at the 2:30 hour. She can see all these kids because she backs up to it. She thought that the traffic would move onto Senecca because they don't want to wait and that would adversely impact the schools. Beth Baily 4313 Shadowbrooke Court stated that Webber Junior High is in her backyard. The way their subdivision was developed there really is no way for the children in the courts to get to school except to use Wakerobin, Regency and Senneca. She pointed out the intersections backed up at rush hour and that it is nearly impossible to make a left hand turn so they go to Horsetooth because of the traffic. If the traffic is increased it is only going to get worse. She has spent a lot of time in this area and there is more than just the foxes. There are raptors, hawks and also deer at times. There is a heron that hangs out in the wetlands and there is a lot more wildlife than people realize. She thinks that developing a center will decrease their property values and increase crime in the area. It was a much better plan to keep it the way it is already. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 16, 2006 Page 13 Mark Doner 4360 Westbrook Court stated that he was for Public Open Land and Public Open Space. There are a couple of reasons, one there is a blue heron that flies back and forth between those wetlands and their neighbors ponds. There is also a fox den and there are babies there every April for the last seven or eight years. He is also concerned about the kids walking along Wakerobin that go to Johnson and Webber. When they developed Shadowbrooke and Mill Creek they provided no sidewalks or outlets to the schools so all the kids in those neighborhoods are forced to walk, and that is a safety concern. The children in the neighborhood do not want to see any development. The opportunity cost is zero, the opportunity costs of building here, you could just as well leave it as public open lands because there are so many other sites in the Fort Collins area that the city could receive tax dollars for. Kathy Gargan 4366 Westbrooke Ct would prefer not to have anything behind her house because the sunrise comes up and it is beautiful and there is open space there. Things change over the years and why this was not considered to be open space in the city, she does not know why. There is a lot of wildlife there and a lot of people who use that land to walk their dogs and have open space to run and do things. Her biggest concern is she does not want a grocery store behind her house because she does not want the lights so it would be better for her on the comer. Geoff Butler 4617 Regency Drive thought there has been some good points have been made and he agreed with all of them including some of the developers points which is this is a more desirable location because of its visibility. That is a -problem, we have increased the exposure to streets by putting it there now instead of just bordering one major street and one side, Wakerobin has already been pointed out, and now we are on two sides of Wakerobin and also bordering Harmony as well which increases the impacts. He agrees with the buffer zone issues as well. When he bought his home it was not zoned commercial and it will affect his property value and he will suffer directly as a result of this change that was not in existence when, he bought his property. Brenda Dyer 4373 Westbrook Ct was against the rezoning for reasons of traffic and children's safety getting to and from school, quality of life will be affected. They love watching the fox in the area and the wetlands. Marty Leeke 4612 Mariposa Court stated that his position on the proposed change in the zoning is that it would create a negative impact for a number of reasons. Regarding the traffic, he has every confidence that the city is going to do what ever they can to alleviate the traffic problem regardless of how this is zoned. He wanted to let Mr. Markel and Cameron know that they appreciate the neighborhood meeting and meeting with the neighborhood. He thought that it was great to get the input and get this involvement. He was aware of the current zoning when they purchased their property. They have lived there for 10 years and before they purchased their property in the Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 16, 2006 Page 12 supermarket area. It would appear that there has been no data or studies done to indicate a supermarket of the size and scale proposed for the corner of Shields and Harmony is needed. There are seven grocery and supermarkets within a three mile radius of this particular corner. Because of the saturation of these stores, there is a great chance, including the proposed store will fail leaving yet one more empty building, asphalt parking lot eyesore in our city. A decision to leave the zoning as it is will encourage the development of a neighborhood center with features and businesses that are suited to this location. She would also like to ad with regard to the center that is located at Drake and Timberline, which has been used as a comparison, and an example of what might be put on this corner, she would encourage the Board to visit the Drake and Timberline site and the Shields and Harmony site to observe the obvious differences that exist. One is a brand new developed area and one is 15 years old that obviously has different needs. Steve Gottschalk 4505 Hilburn Ct stated he has lived in their home for 15 years and they carefully selected that area because it is close to Johnson and Webber. They understand where this development came from and where it was intended on going. He is sure that Mr. Markel is going to build the best home and best commercial area that he knows how to build. He is not in favor of the change in zoning on this particular issue. The first reason is traffic and where he is sitting in his cul-de-sac, he is almost forced to use Regency Drive to get out of his development just to get to work in the morning. It take him any where from 5 to 7 minutes just to get out of the development to get to the traffic light to go to work. You add 1,000 cars and he is going to be stuck in that cul-de- sac for a very long time. He would also emphasize that on the corner of Harmony and Shields there is at least once a month a major accident. If the zoning is left the way it is today and the intersection improvements are made he is confident it would improve the safety and traffic flow at that intersection. The proposal to change the zoning would flood that intersection with a lot of traffic and it is going to be dangerous. He felt the value of homes would go down and there will be an impact either way the zoning goes. There will be continued change as the community grows and we are going to have commercial zoning and he just feels after living there for 15 years that that intersection cannot take on a major supermarket chain. Heather Michelak 1003 W. Horsetooth and does not live in this area but has a business at Horsetooth and Shields and she felt that this development would bring in chain store and would negatively impact not only her locally owned business but other locally owned businesses in her complex as well as the Senecca Center. She thought that it was very valid all the points everyone has brought up from the neighborhood but also look at what impact this will have on the locally owned businesses, people who are keeping the money in the community and not taking it out like the big businesses do. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 16, 2006 Page 11 Bill Browder 1433 Wakerobin Court wanted to clarify a few items concerning the traffic. First he wanted to state that these so called high density roads, the speed limits to both sides whether you come in from Harmony or Shields is 25 mph and with that 25 mph speed limit, himself and every person that lives in one of these cul-de-sacs literally because of the visibility in both directions takes their lives in their hands pulling out of your cul-de-sac because there are so many care already that are coming on this 25 mph speed limit road at 35 and 40mph, you are already out into the intersection by the time you see their approach. That is the main entry into the schools and twice a day for a period of an hour or an hour and 20 minutes it is mostly school buses and car activity going both directions several times a day. It is also filled with the younger kids that elect to walk to school. If Wakerobin Lane and Regency Drive become infiltrated with all this commercial traffic, you will take your life in your hands getting to your mail box due to the density. He agreed with everything that has been said, but it's not going to help any of that area at all by increasing traffic flows. He is strictly against the rezoning and feels that if this is approved, it is going to affect the value of his house. Earl Harper, 1430 Regency Court which is about two blocks distance from the ditch that runs behind the property that they are asking to rezone. He moved into the community 13 years ago and nobody told him it was a commercial zone there, but he had every opportunity to know that. All of them that live out there would rather see it be a nice little park with a lot of trees and shrubbery and paths to walk on, .but to think that the Board is going to tell city of Fort Collins that they are not going to get a million dollars in sales and property taxes from now on is realistic. It is zoned commercial and had an NC in the middle of it and he thinks moving the NC down to the corner is much better than where it was. You will have the same kind of traffic coming out onto Shields and that would make it possible to get on that road. Now at least there is more areas to come out of and get rid of that traffic. According to Mr. Markel there will be 1,000 cars and people in that area as soon as it is fully distributed. His concern is the traffic problems and quality. What they are going to do to Harmony Road will solve the traffic problem we have there now, but that is already been going on for a number of years already. This is going to add 1,000 cars and the city has to be aware that they have to do something to this intersection so it will be serviceable. He takes Mr. Markel's word that he is going to build a quality commercial center there and they are expecting that. They expect the housing to be quality housing so that the property values in their neighborhood will not go down. He would say to those people where the old zoning laws are that the people in the area right behind will.be better off on property values rather than having the commercial flat up against the ditch. Desiree Williams 4331 Mill Creek Ct would like to. say that she sees completely negative impacts on the surrounding neighborhood community by the proposed movement to the corner. Moving it to the corner allows it to blossom into an extremely large commercial Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 16, 2006 Page 10 bring up point number one. There was an information meeting that was held on Monday, February 27th and Cameron suggested that everyone drive out to Drake and Timberline and see that community out there. He did that today and it is immense and he has a hard time figuring out how that would fit on this corner. It is not a friendly neighborhood center, it is a major commercial center out there to serve that entire neighborhood out there. It is interesting that the item that got canceled tonight to rezone that area to make that area even larger than it already is. That could possibly happen to this site as well and have even more negative impact on their neighborhood. In contrast, the area available for NC and MMN development is much smaller and so a commercial center similar to the one at Drake and Timberline is not appropriate for the scale of the neighborhood because you can't put as much MMN between us and the residential area. The development at Drake and Timberline is buffered by a very deep swath of apartments and condos and is surrounded on all sides. It seemed like it was at least half a mile before there was any low density housing. The area is new and the commercial center that is going in with the neighborhood makes sense. They have an existing neighborhood and it is much more difficult to put something of that scale in this close. Their neighborhood is fifteen years old and they have become accustomed to the quiet peacefulness of the area and a large commercial center like that at Drake and Timberline is not in the character of their already established neighborhood. Matt Florian 4378 Westbrooke Ct stated that people have brought up very good points as to why against this move. Like the landowner, when he bought his house he knew there was a potential for that center to go in there. What he has learned since living there is that this area, a very nice neighborhood with great characteristics already has a fair amount of traffic that flows through them especially the road that is now going to be boarded by this Neighborhood Center, Wakerobin, which is the main street for anyone taking in their kids to Webber Junior High causing a fair amount of traffic on a very regular basis and causing already congestion problems at that intersection of Wakerobin and Shields. He heard for the first time today that one of the potential mitigations that was suggested to the developer about how do you resolve the traffic on a corner that regularly sees emergency lights for accidents is supposed to move to the north the entry. That takes a street that is already impacted with Webber and impact it with kids getting to and from Johnson Elementary and everyone who lives there and now you are going into that particular street. That would be a significant impact. People already don't abide by the speed limits there. They fly up the road trying to rush their kids to school. As it stands today, the city has not done anything to mitigate the amount of traffic that flows through there and the speed, and now we are going to add more. He asked the Board in considering this request what it is going to do to the traffic. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 16, 2006 Page 9 is supposed to be integrated so there are reasons why it was originally set forth to be in the middle of the block as opposed to on the corner. Ed Kirchoff 1403 Nunn Creek Court wanted to make sure that everybody here understands what is going on with this rezoning. It is not simply moving a tract of land from one place to another. It is also changing to a supermarket from a grocery store. To him that is a very significant change. That falls under the things that are really permitted here and the required findings and rules and regulations that apply to changing from a grocery store to a supermarket. It says in Section 1.3.4 that you have to conform to "all" of the following conditions, not just a few. One is that it conforms to the basic characteristics of the zone district. It has been pointed out a couple of times that you have an NC zone, a buffer zone of high density housing and you have another zone of low density housing. In the original location that is exactly what you would get. In the new location it is not quite that way. It is marginally close, but it is not the same thing. Someone mentioned the Toddy's strip mall, and that is exactly the kind of strip mall that he thinks should be in the present location. That fits the concept of the buffer mall and phasing into low density housing. The parts of this that are not conforming is the new supermarket will not create any more offensive noise, dust, smoke, traffic hazards, generate traffic or attraction adverse. That is all in Section 1.3.4(a)(3) that says you have to make sure that you are not going to put more of that in. If you consider that the supermarket is going to be at least 15% bigger than the grocery store and you figure that it is probably going to be square function like 1.15 squared for how much more problem you are going to get. You are looking at about 30 or 40% more problem with a supermarket than you are with a grocery store that is in place at the moment. The other thing that concerns him greatly is Harmony and Shields is already one of the highest accident rate intersections in the city of Fort Collins and even with the improvements scheduled for Harmony we are not going to solve that problem. The Community College just keeps growing and traffic is just incredible. He agreed with the people who said we probably have less of a traffic impact if we limited this to.the original location and force the traffic onto Shields instead of that intersection. John Williams, 4331 Mill Creek Court was concerned about all the children who walk in the area and he is also concerned about the Regency traffic. He stated that the rezoning would only have a negative impact on their neighborhood and that is in direct contrast to what the developer had indicated.. He would focus his comments on Section 2.9.4(H)(8)(3) of the Land Use Code, additional considerations for quasi judicial , rezonings. He quoted, "it is a question of whether and to the extent that the proposed amendment is compatible with the existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land and is the appropriate zone district for the land." In that regard he would like to Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 16, 2006 Page 8 would be. He believes that this movement does and he would rap up by saying that even though this area would have adverse impacts and he does not think it is limited to just the wetland. He thinks it is the entire neighborhood, the views, the character of that corner and some of the beauty of Fort Collins which is retained when you are careful about developing, that is the Board's job and his job is to inform himself and make his opinion known. He asked the Board not to support the rezoning. He also cited Section 3.41 and that if any portion of a development site has the basic characteristics of a wetland or natural habitat such that they would be included, then they essentially are. Chairperson Lingle asked for the record, his comments were representative of those 60 people he mentioned. Mr. Miller replied yes, they went out and presented the things they thought needed to be addressed regarding the zoning change and asked if they would sign'to allow him to speak on their behalf if they were not able to come. Karen Miller, 4325 Mill Creek Court referenced Principle RD1 of City Plan and stated that it showed a diagram of what she imagined to be the city's interpretation of what a residential district that includes an NC would look like. It shows several neighborhood centers and how they might occur. She understands that this proposed development is not specifically a neighborhood center, although that was not really clear to her until tonight. It does talk about the residential district being centered around either a neighborhood center or a community commercial district, which she thought this would then be considered. It shows it right in the middle of the neighborhood, which theirs is not exactly; but it is certainly closer in its original location than if it were on the corner. It shows more dense housing around it and then lower density housing. Their neighborhood now does not really have any high density housing except on the other side of Shields. So all the proposed high density housing would be new, but the lower density housing has been in existence for a long time. When the reference to Rigden Farm was made, that was not accurate because that is all a new neighborhood. Moving the commercial to the corner no longer integrates it into the neighborhood, it more less stands by itself. There is a reference in City Plan and the Land Use.Code that specifically says that they are not to be separate districts, that it should be integrated as it is shown in City Plan. The other document she has is the Master Plan that was approved in 1981 and it shows where the Neighborhood Service Center was and it was 16.5 acres. The Master Plan shows where the housing and the Neighborhood Service Center was to be located. It was approved by the city and continued through the City Plan rezoning process and it has always been considered it to be built in this fashion. The way we all interpret it both in the nature of City Plan as well as the Land Use Code itself seems to suggest that this Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 16, 2006 Page 7 The areas that he thinks are in direct conflict is that the recommendation to rezone is not indicated under Section 2.9.4(H)(8) because it seems that the mandatory . requirements for allowing a rezoning require that the amendment be consistent with City Plan. He believes that it is not for several reasons. It also asks if it is warranted by changed conditions in the neighborhood and he has not heard that yet addressed. He believes that there may be some reasons that weigh against the rezoning. One is the very nice natural area that the city has allowed to be developed by Trees, Water and People. It is very pretty and is a habitat for wildlife. It also does not restrict the view of the mountains and maintains the area in a unique flavor and character. He understands that if the NC is not moved that it is possible or likely that some higher density housing may go into that corner. His personal opinion is that if that development conforms to the City Plans guidelines it would also add in an attractive way to that view corridor for Harmony and Shields. The view corridor extends from Front Range Community College and the Library all the way to the mountains. Another thing he was concerned about from the beginning is traffic and he understands that that intersection has some problems and it would be nice to have it developed as soon as possible to help solve those problems. However, he believes that even though most NC's are located at intersections that that is actually not what City Plan has proposed. Having this located some where between Horsetooth and Harmony it seems would help solve some of the entry and exit problems rather than putting the traffic congestion right in the middle of the intersection which is already a problem. He would also like to address other considerations when a rezoning request is made. The additional considerations under Section 2.9(4)(8)(8) and is it compatible with an existing use in addition would it result in a significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment and is it logical. That is really a value judgment to some degree. He thinks it is illogical to some degree, he thinks it is illogical to move the zoning closer to the current natural area, which is a wetland even thought it is not in the city's inventory as a wetland. It seems like having the commercial area further away from that and not adjacent will result in there not being as many conflicts with the buffer zones that come into play when it is found that you are within a habitat or natural area wetland where there are species that need to be protected orjust the area itself needs to not have adverse impacts. He understands that the Planning Director has the right to under Section 4.19(c)(2) to add uses or permit uses that are prohibited by any conflicts with zoning. He seemed to remember that the initial plan included a,supermarket that is larger than what is normally permitted. in an NC designation. It is a reviewable use, but presumably there would be criteria and some of the criteria is under Section 1.34(A)(3), and basically it comes down to does it have an adverse impact over and above what the original zoning Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 16, 2006 Page 6 Director Gloss replied that it reflected the 1981 Master Plan. That Master Plan was submitted by a developer and the staff at the time evaluated .it and based on the record there was no preference given by the staff, but it was the applicant that proposed it in between Wakerobin and future Troutman Parkway. That was in 1981 and the zoning stayed in placed until 19.97 during City Plan and staff evaluated the location and confirmed that it was still appropriate to have it in that location. Chairperson Lingle asked if community wide was it not a more common location to be right on an intersection of arterials. Director Gloss replied that was correct. PUBLIC INPUT Shane Miller 4325 Mill Creek Court stated he went to the neighborhood meeting regarding this issue and listened to the presentation by Markel Homes. He was interested to know if the zoning change would impact their neighborhood in a negative or positive way. He started researching the City Plan, Land Use Code, Municipal Code and the Land Stewardship and Conservation Code. He found some things in the Code that affected his interest in the rezoning. He believes it is not desirable because it appears to conflict with many of the guidelines in both City Plan and the Land Use Code. Overall after looking at all of the facts and considerations that are given in City Plan to development he concluded that they thought that it would increase adverse impacts on the neighborhood by affecting existing community resources, endangering a fragile habitat, increasing traffic congestion at the intersection, decreasing the natural stormwater and flood mitigation capacity that already exists and degrading the asthetic characteristics and view corridors. The way he came to this conclusion is that he read City Plan and the Land Use Code and looked at how the city wanted to develop ideally in order to achieve their goals. It seemed as though their request for the movement of the zoning would negatively impact or create conflicts with the specific intent of the Land Use Code regarding what an NC development and where the location should be. Mr. Miller cited Section 4.(D)(1) that claims that land use boundaries and density changes in Neighborhood Commercial District shall occur at "mid -block" locations to the maximum extent feasible rather than at streets so similar building face each other. This particular zoning for this property was in effect as far back as 1985 and was also in effect when the current owner of the property purchased the property. He was interested in that because he is interested in the rights of a property owner to get what they bargained for when they acquire property as we all are affected with that with CCR's Homeowners Association. He wanted to see if the current owner's rights were being taken away with the current zoning in place. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 16, 2006 Page 5 Member Schmidt asked if there was any difference based on zoning for protection of natural features. Doug Moore, Environmental Planner replied it was all the same in both zoning districts. Member Schmidt asked if there were any NC's that are not anchored by a grocery store. Director Gloss replied that there are a few that are smaller that were built years ago that are of a size that does not support a grocery store. Member Rollins asked if this came through without the rezoning would it have been Planning staffs desire to move the Neighborhood Commercial closer to the intersection anyway. Director Gloss replied it was looked at and staff did not have preference. Staff agrees with the original design that had it in between Wakerobin and Troutman, but when approached by the applicant we weighed the pro's and con's and came to the conclusion that staff did not have any opposition to the change and found it to work equally well. Member Schmidt asked if this gave us more flexibility traffic wise. Director Gloss replied that it was stated quite clearly in the neighborhood meeting and the applicant has had several discussions with the city's Traffic Engineer that this is a tough site to develop regardless of what you put on it because we have access limitations because we have two arterial streets that have relatively high volume and high speed. We want to keep the traffic flowing and at the same time provide access to the properties. This applicant is going to have to address that issue and it may mean that full movement or even three quarter movement closer to the intersection cannot happen and that patrons will have to go a little further to the north and to the west to access this site. Mr. Markel added that they will work with the Transportation Department and there will be some other studies done for this particular intersection and they would like to participate in that. He knows that intersection is a priority for the Transportation Department and with them coming in they could work in conjunction as a parallel course and get some things the city would need and also things they would need. It could also save the city some money. Chairperson Lingle asked if there was a particular reason that the NC was originally located off of the intersection. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 16, 2006 Page 4 southeast corner and slides were shown of the recreated wetland west of the property and the wetland on the subject property on the southeast corner. Slides were also shown of other natural resources on the site; a tree immediately adjacent to the ditch that would need to be protected and the buffer area. Staff based on the criteria believes that the Structure Plan amendment should go forward finding that the City Plan Principles and Policies can still be upheld with the switch by moving the neighborhood center 500 feet to the south. There is still a good connection to the site from adjacent neighborhoods. The applicant has stated in the public record and in the written statement to the Board that they are finding that the market is dictating that the neighborhood center be moved and he would let the applicant expand on that. It is staffs position that this is an appropriate change to the Structure Plan and the Rezoning request. Michael Markel, 5723 Arapahoe Blvd, Boulder gave the applicants presentation. Mr. Markel stated that Director Gloss did a wonderful job explaining the rezoning and what he could expand on is that they are doing the rezoning in order to have a greater visibility to the commercial center. That's on a request that they are working with to partnering up with a•commercial developer that would like to have a Neighborhood Center anchored by a grocery store. They have had a request from this commercial developer that in order to get a grocery store, the location would have to change in order to have a successful and viable Neighborhood Center. He thought that when the original plan was done there was commercial that bisected the two residential pieces; they feel that on the residential side, it is a win win situation that they are trying to propose that the commercial be even more successful at the corner and that having a residential be knit together in a new urbanism type plan with park space and trails and some of the connectivity of the plan they have some ideas on which they have shared them at the neighborhood meeting with some of the neighborhood. They feel it is an appropriate rezoning and will not have a negative impact on any of the adjacent properties and it should be a positive and be successful and it will serve the neighborhood in a number of different ways. It would have services for the neighborhood and they would be providing connectivity of trails and park space within the development proposal. Mr. Markel asked for approval from the Board on the rezoning. Member Schmidt asked if the size of each zoning would stay the same. Mr. Markel replied it was close and the difference is only an acre or so. They are asking for a little less commercial than what was on the original zoning. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 16, 2006 Page 3 by a grocery store or supermarket, they have a lot of associated uses and then from there we springboard to much higher intensities in the Employment, Industrial and Community Commercial, Harmony Corridor, North and South College and Downtown areas. You can see in this hierarchy where we fit in the discussion tonight about the NC, Neighborhood Commercial. Director Gloss showed and reviewed examples of existing commercial areas in different zoning districts. He stated that the Neighborhood Commercial Centers are typically between 15 and 20 acres in size and the requested at hand is around 18 acres. When staff looked at City Plan designations for Neighborhood Centers, we were trying to achieve a short commute to these essential services. He stated that these centers have been a great success in other locations in providing services in close proximity to multiple neighborhoods. The NC, Neighborhood Center designation serves more than one neighborhood. Director Gloss gave a comparison of the MMN and the NC districts and the permitted uses. The MMN zone is primarily residential, single family and attached units. There are also secondary uses up to 15% of the site could be for things like child care, personal services, clinics, mixed -use, restaurants, group homes, schools and other types of public facilities are permitted by right. The NC district is quite a bit more intensive. It includes all the MMN district uses and in addition we have standard restaurants, fast food restaurants with no drive thru, a whole range of retail uses, grocery store, supermarket with a Planning and Zoning Board review, gas stations, print shops and catering. These are all uses that are permitted in the NC zone district. Director Gloss stated that the ownership is 58 acres and reviewed the surrounding. uses in the area. He showed slides of the site and stated that there were some wetlands on the site. The original zoning of the site was created in 1981 prior to most of the area being developed. The Master Plan did not come full circle to construction and there is now an opportunity to bring that forward. We have an applicant that has expressed an interest in developing the property relatively soon. There is some natural resource issues associated with this site regardless of how it is developed. There was a lot of discussion at the neighborhood meeting recently. There is a property immediately to the west that is owned by the city's Stormwater Utility. It was enhanced by Trees, Water and People, a group that did a wetland restoration on the northeast corner of the site. We had some discussion about this at our worksession last Friday and a question also came up at our neighborhood meeting as to why this parcel is zoned MMN. Staff thinks that is an error and the public notice requirements could not be met for the Board to initiate a change to the zoning tonight and make a recommendation to Council. Staff would like to bring forward at the hearing a request, City initiated to rezone that from MMN to POL, Public Open Lands. Along the ditch there is a buffer that is 50 feet wide and there is a stand of trees that will have to be protected as part of any development planning for the site. There is also wetland on the Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 16, 2006 Page 2 Project: Harmony and Shields Structure Plan Amendment and Rezoning, #1-06 Project Description: Request to amend the Structure Plan map and rezone a 58 acre parcel located on the west side of South Shields Street north of Harmony Road. The rezone would essentially reconfigure the pattern of existing zone districts by moving the 17.9 acre area zoned NC, Neighborhood Commercial, presently located in between the proposed Troutman Parkway extension and Wake Robin Lane, approximately 500 feet to the south. The resulting zone districts would include an NC -zoned parcel at the northwest corner of Harmony and Shields with the balance of the site zone MMN, Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood. Staff Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss gave the staff presentation. Director Gloss stated he had received a particular request and gave some background about Commercial Centers in Fort Collins and some of the planning that has been done over the past several decades with our Commercial Centers. Director Gloss reviewed the City Structure Plan map and pointed out designated strategically placed commercial areas and reported that was to lessen trip length and the type of trips that people take to these types of services that you would find in a neighborhood commercial center. Staff created a provision in the MMN zone district for secondary uses, primarily services that are very low in intensity. Effective January 15t a provision was approved to allow a small scale restaurant like a coffee shop or a deli in the MMN zone and it is very limited and has to be within a mixed -use building. That is the lowest intensity commercial type of use that we have in the city. We build from there to what we call a LMN neighborhood center. There has been a lot of confusion about these centers. They are small, a maximum of 5 acres in size. There is one west of the area in question that is about a mile to the west that has a series of small uses with a community gathering space and they also have some accessory service type uses. Then we go onto the main topic which is the NC Neighborhood Center. The Neighborhood Center designation allows for a full complement of services and retail types of goods available for neighborhoods on a regular basis. They are anchored Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat Chairperson: Dave Lingle Vice Chair: Brigitte Schmidt Staff Liaison: Cameron Gloss Phone: (W) 223-1820 Phone: (W) 491-2579 Chairperson Meyer called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call: Fries, Smith, Schmidt, Meyer, Rollins and Lingle. Member Stockover was absent. Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Shepard, Moore, Aspen, Waido and Leman. Citizen Participation: None Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss reviewed the Consent Agenda: Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes of the October 20, 2005 and February 16, 2006 (Continued) Planning and Zoning Board Hearings. 2. Resolution PZ06-03 Easement Vacation. 3. #48-02A Cingular — Calvary Baptist — Wireless Telecommunications Facility — Project Development Plan. 4. #33-01 M Sanctuary Annexation and Zoning. 5. #55-05 Mountain & Frey Rezoning and Amendment to the West Side Neighborhood Plan. 6. #8-991 Willow Brook Parcel F Rezoning. 7. Recommendation to City Council for an Increase in the Postage Fee for the Notification Fee for Affected Property Owners. Discussion Items: 8. #1-06 Harmony and Shields Structure Plan Amendment and Rezoning. 9. #24-OOC Spring Creek Farms Rezoning and Structure Plan Amendment. (Continued to April 20, 2006). Member Schmidt moved to approve the consent agenda except for the February 16, 2006 Hearing minutes. Member Meyer seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0. Member Schmidt moved to continue item 9, the Spring Creek Farms Rezoning to the April 20, 2006 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing. Member Meyer seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0.